It was just a test. I didn’t know it had internet access, I just connected it up to the internet how was I supposed to know?
Essentially OpenAI’s defense every time one of their AI does something that was instructed to do, but turned out to be illegal.
Especially because it’s the same damn people every time that caused the security vulnerabilities in the first place. If Karen could just stop clicking on obviously spam emails we’d be fine.
And then only the criminals would have them. You know because criminals tend to break the law so making a tool that they used to break the law illegal wouldn’t really impaire them.
This is what’s been annoying me since the beginning. Anytime someone comes up with an example of where AI can be useful it’s always coding. It’s like they think that literally everyone programs things all the time and does nothing else.
computers will NEVER be intelligent. Without lines of code that humans made and tweak, computers wont do anything.
You’re basically saying a computer cannot be intelligent because it doesn’t have a soul. There is absolutely no scientific rigor in your argument, you’re basically saying you’re right, and your reason for believing your right, is because you believe you are.
It’s really not difficult. You made a statement that stated that you believe that there is consensus, so presumably that means that you know where that consensus exists, therefore provide a link to it. If you cannot then you cannot make the assertion that consensus exists, because by definition it doesn’t.
Your entire argument rests on the basic idea that there is a scientific definition for consciousness and we have a test for if something is conscious or not. There is no test because there is no consensus. It is not possible for you to prove through scientific rigor that you are conscious, and presumably you’re human. So how can they possibly be consensus on something as contentious as artificial intelligence?
Electronic voting has been compromised multiple times in the United States so that’s demonstrably untrue
Not only is that false, it doesn’t make logical sense…
Argument by assertion and you haven’t proven the assertion
Lots of people agree on a different definitions of consciousness.
Lots of people can’t agree on a different definition. Is there a different definitions then by it’s very nature people do not agree.
And all human brains are doing is firing neural impulses.
It’s incredibly reductionist to reject AI consciousness simply on the basis that it’s software. To be clear I don’t think LLMs are conscious but that’s not the same as saying that an AI could never be conscious.
AIs are almost certainly not conscious but it been a computer is not an argument against consciousness. There’s no reason to believe that you need biological material for consciousness.
After all humans are primarily made of carbon which itself demonstrably does not think. It’s the structure that’s important and a fair argument could be made to say that the structure of a brain is replicated in software in an AI and therefore the medium isn’t relevant to the question.
I’m not really sure what the point of having a conversation about consciousness is. As far as I’m aware no one has ever actually been able to define consciousness in such a way that it could be tested for.
So how could we possibly know one way or the other?
Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness
Oh great so we’ve only just started the article and we’re already mudding the waters. This bodes well. There is no reason to necessarily believe that a system has to be conscious in order to be intelligent. We have multiple examples of consciousness without intelligence (see my fat cat) so there’s no reason to believe that the inverse can also not be true.
When the shareholders are casting votes on things in the company I work for they use an iPad. I’m reasonably confident that the side loaded iPad app they use is more secure than the US voting systems.
It’s classic America. Have an overly complicated stupid system that doesn’t work, and is inherently unsafe, but don’t fix it because doing so would require some billionaire to lose a revenue stream.
Hopefully they’ll try and rig the election but do so in such an incompetent manner that it all just falls apart on its own.
No that’s a different word.
Litigated, means to have already discussed and arrived at an answer.
Mitigated, means a solution is already in place. No one’s fixed the issue so it’s litigated, but not mitigated.
I meant what I said.
I never understand the point of the “But he was elected fairly” angle. So was Vladimir Putin as far as anyone can tell, so was Adolf Hitler, so was Stalin, the only major dictator of the last century that I can think of that definitely seized power through illegitimate means is Castro I suppose you could also make an argument for the CCP but certain people refute that.
Most dictators become dictators over time, the vast majority don’t grab power from a legitimate government because they would instantly have a fight on their hands. Usually that only happens with the US’s assistance.
Yeah I’m really not sure why they’ve decided to put anthem on the end of that list.
Tell her that she needs to get on board with the new paradigm. The AI industry has never been held back by consideration such as what people want.
Moores law hasn’t been a thing for over a decade. It’s just the AI industry consuming all the compute
I don’t understand people who just let the AI loose on their system and don’t have any safeguards in place. At the very minimum it shouldn’t have admin access and should be limited to just the project folders. Also back up the project folders to another location the AI doesn’t have access to.
Really basic digital hygiene is all that’s needed, and yet there are constantly stories about idiots having their entire hard drives wiped.